If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

No, Thomas, that's the true cost of silver for a particular hand-coated alternative process. It doesn't correlate at all with the silver in industrially manufactured silver papers. The most reliable information I've found pins it at 0.9 to 1.2 grams of silver per square meter of black and white paper emulsion (film has more, as does color paper, surprisingly).

Thomas, even in your own idiosyncratic example, it seems the cost of silver is insignificant compared to the cost of the paper. Most of your silver is excess, as opposed to the 50% utilization rate of manufactured silver papers.

You guys are confusing the coating process. Raw silver grains are not deposited on the paper but are dissolved in a solution such as silver nitrate and then that solution is then coated onto the paper. Posted a while back on the forum was a 1950's film of how Kodak manufactured film. It showed the manufacturing process from beginning to end and stated that Kodak used 40 tons of pure silver a month in the manufacturing process. To do that you need a lab, capable and highly trained workers, equipment...shoot you need a factory building. In my own personal example none of the labor or equipment cost are factored in. As far as the actual amount of raw silver deposited on each sheet of paper then simply answer the following HS chemistry problem:

If the price of silver is $32 per ounce what is the cost of the silver contained in 2mL of a 10% solution of Silver Nitrate (AgNO3)?
Hint: Use dimensional analysis to find the answer.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

Per the ongoing nonsense about cost of silver etc - a manufacturer does not think like a
hobbyist. If the cost of a crucial commodity goes up 30%, or 50%, or 1000% at a critical
juncture where they are forced to reinvest, what do you think will happen to the cost of
the final product, the paper? It has to be factored in somehow, along with everything else,
and is a very significant expense at mfg volumes. It must be hell right now, since there's is
so much panic speculation on precious metals in general. Too bad I don't have any gold
fillings in my teeth.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

Whenever I make a finished print, silver or ink, that really works for me. I usually put it away for a day and then look at it again when I am fresh and distanced from all the effort. I usually pin it to the wall under "gallery lighting" and try to just experinece the print anew. If it still works for me then (I may go back and work on it some more) I try and do an edition of ten. Over the years I have found that an inventory of prints is a very valuable asset for quick presentations, off the cuff portfolio presentations, less work to pull together an exhibit and sales of course (my rep always needs a good set and no one wants to wait). I have found that with ink IME I really cannot go back a year later and just push a button and get an exact match print-humidity changes, papers change, inksets are not identical etc. so there are always differences, some minor and some significant, to where I always end up adjusting the file a little or allot before reprinting. I also never feel like any print is ever finished so after living with a print for a year or so I welcome the opportunity to tweak or redo it again. I don't feel obligated to forever make identical prints from a negative if it can be improved.

Thanks,
Kirk

at age 65
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

You just jogged my memory, Kirk. My prints have been coming out a tad flat the last two
weeks and the only change during that time was the lightbulb over the sink (when I flick
the room light on). Drying down test strips is of course no substitute for seeing the full
print toned and air-dried a few days later. So I'm putting an old-style bulb back in tonite.
But it is a whole different ballgame for some. Those who run tourist galleries are often showing only display prints, and the real thing get shipped from another facility doing the
framing too. The kinds of clients involved probably aren't even aware of subtle distinctions
or even significant distinctions between one print and another - the quality control from
batch to batch is secondary to the generic image itself. Totally different strategy than those of us who value each print independently. Even in the same session I will print the
neg in more than one manner, and might like each for a different reason. Everything else
goes to the trashcan.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

Originally Posted by tgtaylor

Actually last month I made 10 Vandykes (11 including the one for myself) for this years print exchange. Each were hand coated with senstizer in my darkroom, dried under a safelight, exposed to the open sunlight, and finally developed, washed, and hung to dry. Since I have but one 8x10 contact printing frame and the time to make only 3 prints/day it took several days to complete the printing. Since I routinely take careful notes all prints were practically identical which Darr could attest to as she saw all 10. The only difference was at the edges where the senstizer ended and it may have slightly leaked under the tape border that I used. Since the sun is not the same from day to day (time of day, passing clouds, atmospheric haze...etc) each print required a careful and reasoned judgement of when to end the exposure.

Thomas

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's time-consuming and no fun to do in a darkroom with silver prints (which is what I thought we were talking about). Alt processes are a whole different deal than silver prints in many respects. Among others, I always enjoyed everything I did when making gum and van dyke brown prints.

Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

Great story. I would love to see Tyler's finished prints on this. He is a master.

I get the perfectionism and the seemingly endless paths to pursue and experiment with with inkjet. I went from mat Epson to glossy Epson to mat Cone and now am working on glossy Cone. This was going through a couple dozen different papers too. Ideally I would like multiple printers as I still really like Cone mat for some images but I don't currently have the room or the budget.

Thanks,
Kirk

at age 65
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

Originally Posted by Brian Ellis

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it's time-consuming and no fun to do in a darkroom with silver prints (which is what I thought we were talking about). Alt processes are a whole different deal than silver prints in many respects. Among others, I always enjoyed everything I did when making gum and van dyke brown prints.

Unless the negative is one that "prints itself," it's the same with silver prints: Instead of monitoring the expsure you have to, for example, dodge or burn each one and that requires that you pay attention to each individual print. You can't just walk away from them as you can with the computer. If you read the Tyler Boley link you will see that silver printing is still unequaled by digital. Yeah, the Cone ink is pitched but they got skin in the game.

Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

If you read the Tyler Boley link you will see that silver printing is still unequaled by digital.

Actually if you truly read Tyler's article he says nothing of the kind. I think you are projecting and not reading. He only mentions silver twice and primarily he says "Silver was not an option as the bravado of big density and shiny surface killed the feel of the images." IE silver was not appropriate for his vison of these images, nothing more, nothing less.

Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 6-Apr-2012 at 23:07.

Thanks,
Kirk

at age 65
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"